Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

No, you can't. Unless you've come up with new reasoning or data, because the last time you tried you failed.
How did I fail?
Can you demonstrate this dramatic improval of lives which comes with worship of God?
By believing in and worshipping God, He will provide you with real objective meaning and purpose to your life which will give you greater and deeper joy in your life. In addition, studies have shown that living according to Christian principles causes you to be more law abiding, improves your marriage and sex life, and even live longer among other things.
 
How did I fail?
By failing to show that the Christian god exists.
By believing in and worshipping God, He will provide you with real objective meaning and purpose to your life which will give you greater and deeper joy in your life. In addition, studies have shown that living according to Christian principles causes you to be more law abiding, improves your marriage and sex life, and even live longer among other things.
Do you have any support at all that worshipping God provides:
- greater and deeper joy
- more law abiding
- improved marriage
- improved sex life
- longer life

I know you say "studies have shown..." What studies? Where? When? Link?
 
How did I fail?

By believing in and worshipping God, He will provide you with real objective meaning and purpose to your life which will give you greater and deeper joy in your life. In addition, studies have shown that living according to Christian principles causes you to be more law abiding, improves your marriage and sex life, and even live longer among other things.
Taking on any cultural sociological lifestyle does that. The secret is not Christianity. The secret is the structure and strength found in culture itself. Christianity is just an inherited artifact. Chinese find peace, relationship, law, and long life in belonging to their culture... the Buddhist culture.
 
I have explained it, so I'll try a different way of explaining it. You said ...


Logic isn't something that's put into the universe. That things are what they are, the Law if Identity, isn't something put into the universe, it's a trivially obvious point that can't be otherwise. God can't make it be so and He can't make it be otherwise. To prove me wrong you would have to show how a duck could be a stapler.
No, if the universe is a created entity, the creator can make it pretty much however He wants. Just like a novelist can make his novel rational or irrational. But because the actual Creator Himself is logical and in fact, Logic Himself, He would only create a logical universe. While He could not make a square circle, He theoretically could make duck into a stapler if He so chose. Some people believe that even humans can make a man into a woman, but of course they cant.
 
No, if the universe is a created entity, the creator can make it pretty much however He wants.
I'm afraid He can't, he can't make a universe with square circles, or with ducks that are staplers, because they would either be ducks, or staplers, but not both at the same time.
Just like a novelist can make his novel rational or irrational.
Bit of a false analogy. A novelist can make a novel with logical inconsistencies, but God can't make square circles or married bachelors.
But because the actual Creator Himself is logical and in fact, Logic Himself, He would only create a logical universe.
What do you mean, God is logic? That makes no sense.
While He could not make a square circle, He theoretically could make duck into a stapler if He so chose.
Then you miss the point, God turning a duck into a stapler isn't logically inconsistent, but, before God makes the duck a stapler, what is it? Whilst a duck, is it a stapler?
 
Because our rights are built into us as image bearers of our Creator.
Do you think then that the Right to Freedom of Religion is built into us by the creator? The creator whose first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
 
That's because - as I implied - we haven't had the ability to successfully investigate the Big Bang. We're in the process of investigating it, through inference and whatever data points we can collect.
Well, so far everything points in the direction of a supernatural creator, since our lifespan is finite, we cant waste our lives waiting for some new investigation to improve our knowledge either against the supernatural or for the supernatural before we take the minor risk and chance to try to communicate with Him. And then you may find that He really is there. There is enough evidence at present to take that rational chance.
I apologize, El Cid. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post's points. While I recognize you as both sincere and thoughtful here, my experience in forum discussion is that once posts start getting dissected into sub-points/discussions, they degrade to the point of futility. This is why I'm going to stick to the first point I made, and the first response you gave.
Can you at least admit that the laws of nature violating behavior of UFOs opens the door to the possibility of the existence of the supernatural?
 
That is a mere rephrasing of the assertion of inherent rights.
Prove that "our rights are built into us as image bearers of our Creator."

(The fact that the Founders held this to be self-evident - their words - is not proof, by the way.)
I can demonstrate that the Christian God probably exists and therefore if He exists then it is a fact that our rights are built into us as His image bearers.
 
No, it's not; that is one Biblical "kind" changing into another Biblical "kind".

Moving the goalposts so that "kind" refers to genus instead of species won't work.
How can I move something we have never discussed before? The biblical kind fits genus better than species. An ancient hebrew would be more likely to be able to differentiate genera than species. To an ancient hebrew a wolf and a coyote would be considered basically the same kind. But a wolf and bobcat would be two different kinds.
 
I disagree; he was, indeed, a Deist.
In the Declaration of Independence he said the Creator endowed us with rights, the Deist god would never do that. Remember he just creates the universe and then leaves it alone. In addition, his grandson said he attended church and prayed regularly. The deist god doesnt answer prayer, so why would he go to church and pray? I am afraid the evidence points to him being a Unitarian.
 
The universe contains purposes and is intelligible, therefore its cause is most likely an intelligent personal being
The universe also contains evil... should I infer that its creator must be evil?
since those two things are only produced by intelligent personal beings.
Once again, this reasoning applies within the universe.
Applying it to the universe is taking it beyond its known scope.
 
In the Declaration of Independence he said the Creator endowed us with rights, the Deist god would never do that.
Why?

The Christian god apparently does no more to protect and enforce these supposed rights than would a deistic god - how, exactly, does the Christian god directly intercede to ensure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
 
Taking on any cultural sociological lifestyle does that. The secret is not Christianity. The secret is the structure and strength found in culture itself. Christianity is just an inherited artifact. Chinese find peace, relationship, law, and long life in belonging to their culture... the Buddhist culture.
I like secrets.

How will you work to get rid of the artifact?

What is your bestest strategery?

Will you open a child center to teach the chillins that there is no God?

I figure I will ask every few months to see if you've made any headway in your Master Plan of riding the world of all this Christian stuff!
 
Everyone that has had a relationship with Him say He is good.
Good, by what standard?
Theirs?
Yes, their moral consciences.
The plural of "opinion" is not "objectivity".
No, but we can discover the objective good, and that is what Christians do when they discover God.
El Cid said:
Besides the above that everyone that knows Him say He is good, there is also the evidence of nations that have incorporated His principles ie Western Civilization, have produced most of the greatest good in history.
1. See above.
See above.
2. Prove that they are his principles, and not human principles that have been ascribed to him.
I can't prove it, but you can't prove you exist to others. But There is historical evidence that they were revealed by Him in written form to the ancient hebrews. And there is sociological evidence that they are built into human consciences. We can't build things into us since we can't create ourselves.
 
No, we are not in agreement on this point... we are in agreement only that Gen 2:4-25 do not constitute a second creation account, but rather a focus on the pinnacle of the creation narrated in Gen 1:1-2:3 (ie. humanity). I view this focus as a later supplement from the hand of a different author and that it does contradict the earlier text at points... the conflict I chose to focus on is the creation of the birds, which takes place on the fifth day according to the first text but between the creation of the man and the woman according to the second text --- this cannot be harmonized with the creation of humans on the sixth day in the first text.
You never said anything about the creation of birds to me. But you are welcome to move the goalposts.
Again, you're missing the point... I appealed to the differences in LXX as ancient attempts to harmonize the discrepancy noted above (and others involving the trees and animals) --- Jewish scribes and translators before the turn of the Common Era recognized the contradictory nature of these texts and sought to ameliorate the problem through various interventions in the text. In other words, the charge of conflict is neither a modern nor atheist position, it was well known in the ancient world among those people who viewed these texts as sacred.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I assume you are referring to Genesis 2:19. The verb form used in 2:19 is the form used for a completed action. So it is correctly translated "had formed". So no contradiction there.
 
Maybe, but most people don't want to live a lie.
This is only a "lie" if you insist on the specialness being objective.
If you don't, there's no lie - I think my species is (subjectvely) special, and that's enough to act upon.
Most people want to live according to objective reality. It may be enough for you but not for most people. So people are going to live as if morality is just opinion and that is a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.
El Cid said:
I can't prove it, just like you can't prove that your mom is good.
There is a difference between "is good" and "is THE good" - you are claiming the latter about your god.

"Is good" is a comparison against a given standard.
"Is THE good" is a definition. And definitions are arbitrary.
He has told us He is the good. So once we get to know Him that is confirmed by His deeds and deeds are not arbitrary.
El Cid said:
In relationships, you learn thru experience that the person is good.
Again, you switched from "is THE good" to "is good". When you say that your god is good, you are comparing him to some standard... what is that standard?

If he himself is the standard, you are saying no more than "my god meets his own standard".
Which conveys absolutely no information whatsoever.
See above.
 
You never said anything about the creation of birds to me. But you are welcome to move the goalposts.

I assume you are referring to Genesis 2:19. The verb form used in 2:19 is the form used for a completed action. So it is correctly translated "had formed". So no contradiction there.
I don't see a contradiction either for the same reason you don't It sounds like God had already made all the birds and animals and now he was bringing them to Adam to name.
 
Back
Top